ArticlePloS one2015
External validation and calibration of IVFpredict: a national prospective cohort study of 130,960 in vitro fertilisation cycles.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pretreatment prediction for IVF outcomes: generalized applicable model or centre-specific model?Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting ongoing pregnancy in single vitrified-warmed blastocyst embryo transfer cycles.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- ESHRE good practice recommendations on recurrent implantation failure.Human reproduction open · 2023Article
- The (decision) tree of fertility: an innovative decision-making algorithm in assisted reproduction technique.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
- Factors associated with livebirth in couples undergoing their first in vitro fertilization cycle: An internally validated prediction modelTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2021Article
- Predictive Ability of an Illness Severity Measure: Implications for Nursing Research.Journal of nursing measurement · 2021Article
- Can Ratios Between Prognostic Factors Predict the Clinical Pregnancy Rate in an IVF/ICSI Program with a GnRH Agonist-FSH/hMG Protocol? An Assessment of 2421 Embryo Transfers, and a Review of the Literature.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2021Review
- Article
- Article
- Can we predict the IVF/ICSI live birth rate?JBRA assisted reproduction · 2019Article
- Involvement of blood mononuclear cells in the infertility, age-associated diseases and cancer treatment.World journal of stem cells · 2016Review
- Definition by FSH, AMH and embryo numbers of good-, intermediate- and poor-prognosis patients suggests previously unknown IVF outcome-determining factor associated with AMH.Journal of translational medicine · 2016Article
- Identification and replication of prediction models for ovulation, pregnancy and live birth in infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurately predicting the probability of a live birth after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) is important for patients, healthcare providers and policy makers. Two prediction models (Templeton and IVFpredict) have been previously developed from UK data and are widely used internationally. The more recent of these, IVFpredict, was shown to have greater predictive power in the development dataset. The aim of this study was external validation of the two models and comparison of their predictive ability. METHODS AND
findings130,960 IVF cycles undertaken in the UK in 2008-2010 were used to validate and compare the Templeton and IVFpredict models. Discriminatory power was calculated using the area under the receiver-operator curve and calibration assessed using a calibration plot and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. The scaled modified Brier score, with measures of reliability and resolution, were calculated to assess overall accuracy. Both models were compared after updating for current live birth rates to ensure that the average observed and predicted live birth rates were equal. The discriminative power of both methods was comparable: the area under the receiver-operator curve was 0.628 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.625-0.631) for IVFpredict and 0.616 (95% CI: 0.613-0.620) for the Templeton model. IVFpredict had markedly better calibration and higher diagnostic accuracy, with calibration plot intercept of 0.040 (95% CI: 0.017-0.063) and slope of 0.932 (95% CI: 0.839-1.025) compared with 0.080 (95% CI: 0.044-0.117) and 1.419 (95% CI: 1.149-1.690) for the Templeton model. Both models underestimated the live birth rate, but this was particularly marked in the Templeton model. Updating the models to reflect improvements in live birth rates since the models were developed enhanced their performance, but IVFpredict remained superior.
conclusionExternal validation in a large population cohort confirms IVFpredict has superior discrimination and calibration for informing patients, clinicians and healthcare policy makers of the probability of live birth following IVF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.